In Depth

Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge Margret Robb dissented from her colleagues in a case involving a man who wanted his
name taken off the Indiana Sex Offender Registry.

Jeremiah Cline had sex with a 15-year-old and 14-year-old in February and June 2001. An amendment to the Indiana Sex Offender
Act effective July 1, 2001, required someone with Cline’s Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor convictions
to register as a sex offender.

When he was released from prison, he was required to register. In 2011, he sought to have his name removed from the registry.
The trial court found he had no obligation to continue to register but that it lacked authority to “expunge” his
existing information from the registry.

Judges
L. Mark Bailey and Paul Mathias agreed, pointing out that Cline argues for complete expungement of his name and information
from the registry because retention of that information has a punitive effect upon him. The majority declined to read Wallace
v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371, 384 (Ind. 2009), as broadly as Cline wants and won’t add a provision to include expungement,
Bailey wrote.

Although Indiana Code 11-8-8-22, the statute created as a result of Wallace to provide for how to remove one’s
name from the registry, provides a mechanism to petition the court for relief from obligation of continued registration and
disclosure, the majority believed that Cline must go through administrative routes with the Department of Correction to remove
his name.

Robb wrote that the majority misused the term “expungement” and that Cline wanted removal of his name, not a
complete erasure of his record. She believed that I.C. 11-8-8-22, which “is poorly written and confusing,” allows
the trial court to remove one’s name from the registry. If the statute does not mean that a court may remove an offender’s
name and information, then it has no meaning at all, she wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Conversations

1 Comments

I think all judges need to read, study and try to understand our U.S. condtitution and state constitution, especially article
1 section 19 of the Indiana Constitution, which states that in all criminal cases whatever, the jury, shall have the right
to determine the law and the facts. In the abscence of a jury, the judge is the jury.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.